Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
oneness and Impact of late Average Fue! My (CAFE) Standards Committee on the Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Transportation Research Board National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. Effecti' Corpora Economy
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report and the study on which it is based were supported by Grant No. DTNH22-00-G- 02307. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Control Number: 2001097714 International Standard Book Number: 0-309-07601-3 Available in limited supply from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA-270 Washington, DC 20418 202-334-3344 Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
National Acaclemy of Sciences National Acaclemy of Engineering Institute of Meclicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engi- neers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advis- ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineer- ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT OF CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS PAUL R. PORTNEY, Chair, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. DAVID L. MORRISON, Vice Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (retired), Cary, North Carolina MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, Michael Finkelstein & Associates, Washington, D.C. DAVID L. GREENE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee JOHN H. JOHNSON, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan MARYANN N. KELLER, priceline.com (retired), Greenwich, Connecticut CHARLES A. LAVE, University of California (emeritus), Irvine ADRIAN K. LUND, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia PHILLIP S. MYERS, NAT, University of Wisconsin, Madison (emeritus) GARY W. ROGERS, FEV Engine Technology, Inc., Auburn Hills, Michigan PHILIP R. SHARP, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JAMES L. SWEENEY, Stanford University, Stanford, California JOHN J. WISE, NAE, Mobil Research and Development Corporation (retired), Princeton, New Jersey Pro jest Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES) ALAN CRANE, Responsible Staff Officer, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards STEPHEN GODWIN, Director, Studies and Information Services (SIS), Transportation Research Board (TRB) NANCY HUMPHREY, Senior Program Officer, SIS, TRB PANOLA D. GOLSON, Senior Project Assistant, BEES ANA-MARIA IGNAT, Project Assistant, BEES Editor DUNCAN BROWN NAE = member, National Academy of Engineering V
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ROBERT L. HIRSCH, Chair, Advanced Power Technologies, Inc., Washington, D.C. RICHARD E. BALZHISER, NAT, Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (retired), Menlo Park, California DAVID L. BODDE, University of Missouri, Kansas City PHILIP R. CLARK, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired), Boonton, New Jersey WILLIAM L. FISHER, NAE, University of Texas, Austin CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. HAROLD FORSEN, NAE, Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM FULKERSON, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired) and University of Tennessee, Knoxville MARTHA A. KREBS, California Nano Systems Institute, Alexandria, Virginia GERALD L. KULCINSKI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison EDWARD S. RUBIN, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ROBERT W. SHAW JR., Arete Corporation, Center Harbor, New Hampshire JACK SIEGEL, Energy Resources International, Inc., Washington, D.C. ROBERT SOCOLOW, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, NAE, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan JACK WHITE, The Winslow Group, LLC, Fairfax, Virginia JOHN J. WISE, NAE, Mobil Research and Development Corporation (retired), Princeton, New Jersey Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director RICHARD CAMPBELL, Program Officer ALAN CRANE, Program Officer MARTIN OFFUTT, Program Officer SUSANNA CLARENDON, Financial Associate PANOLA D. GOLSON, Project Assistant ANA-MARIA IGNAT, Project Assistant SHANNA LIBERMAN, Project Assistant NAE = member, National Academy of Engineering v
Acknowledgments The Committee on the Effectiveness and Impact of Cor- porate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards was aided by the following consultants: Tom Austin, Sierra Research, Inc.; K.G. Duleep, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.; and Steve Plotkin, Argonne National Laboratory. These con- sultants provided analyses to the committee, which the com- mittee used in addition to the many other sources of infor- mation it received. This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accor- dance with procedures approved by the Report Review Com- mittee of the National Research Council (NRC). The pur- pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to en- sure that the report meets institutional standards for objec- tivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript re- main confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: William Agnew (NAB), General Motors Research Laboratories (retired); Lewis Branscomb (NAS, NAB), Harvard University (emeritus); David Cole, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan; . . via Kennerly H. Digges, George Washington University; Theodore H. Geballe (NAS), Stanford University (emeritus); Paul J. Joskow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; James A. Levinsohn, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; James J. MacKenzie, World Resources Institute; and Marc Ross, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John Heywood (NAB), Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, and Gerald P. Dinneen (NAB), Honeywell Inc. (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. In addition, the committee reexamined its technical and economic analysis after the release of the Republication copy in July 2001. The results of that reexamination were released in a letter report, which is also included in this report as Appendix F. The reviewers of that report are credited in Appendix F.
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Scope and Conduct of the Study, 11 References, 12 2 THE CAFE STANDARDS: AN ASSESSMENT CAFE and Energy, 13 Impacts on the Automobile Industry, 22 Impact on Safety, 24 References, 29 TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING THE FUEL ECONOMY OF PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS Fuel Economy Overview, 31 Technologies for Better Fuel Economy, 35 Estimating Potential Fuel Economy Gains and Costs, 40 Hybrid Vehicles, 51 Fuel Cells, 53 References, 55 Attachment 3A A Technical Evaluation of Two Weight- and Engineering-Based Fuel-Efficiency Parameters for Cars and Light Trucks, 56 4 IMPACT OF A MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT FLEET Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Impact, 63 Analysis of Cost-Efficient Fuel Economy, 64 Potential Impacts on the Domestic Automobile Industry, 67 Safety Implications of Future Increases in Fuel Economy, 69 References, 78 Attachment 4A Life-Cycle Analysis of Automobile Technologies, 79 5 POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF AND ALTERNATIVES TO CAFE Why Governmental Intervention?, 83 Alternative Policies Summary Description, 86 More Complete Descriptions of the Alternatives, 88 Analysis of Alternatives, 94 References, 103 Attachment 5A Development of an Enhanced-CAFE Standard, 104 fix 1 7 13 31 63 83
XCONTENTS 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings, 111 Recommendations, 114 APPENDIXES A Dissent on Safety Issues: Fuel Economy and Highway Safety, David L. Greene and Maryann Keller, 117 B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members, 125 C Presentations and Committee Activities, 128 D Statement of Work: Effectiveness and Impact of CAFE Standards, 130 E Acronyms and Abbreviations, 131 F Letter Report: Technology and Economic Analysis in the Prepublication Report Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFEJ Standards, 133 111
Tables and Figures TABLES Change in Death or Injury Rates for 100-lb Weight Reduction in Average Car or Average Light Truck, 26 Occupant Deaths per Million Registered Vehicles 1 to 3 Years Old, 28 Distribution of Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities in 1993 and 1999 by Vehicle and Crash Type, 29 3-1 Fuel Consumption Technology Matrix Passenger Cars, 42 3-2 Fuel Consumption Technology Matrix SUVs and Minivans, 43 3-3 Fuel Consumption Technology Matrix Pickup Trucks, 44 3-4 Estimated Fuel Consumption (FC), Fuel Economy (FE), and Incremental Costs of Product Development, 45 3-5 Published Data for Some Hybrid Vehicles, 52 4-1 Key Assumptions of Cost-Efficient Analysis for New Car and Light Truck Fuel Economy Estimates Using Path 3 Technologies and Costs, 65 4-2 Case 1: Cost-Efficient Fuel Economy (FE) Analysis for 14-Year Payback, 67 4-3 Case 2: Cost-Efficient Fuel Economy (FE) Analysis for 3-Year Payback, 67 4-4 Relative Collision Claim Frequencies for 1998-2000 Models, 73 4A-1 Vehicle Architecture and Fuels Used in the MIT and General Motors et al. Studies, 79 Incentives of the Various Policy Instruments for Seven Types of Fuel Use Response, 95 Issues of Cost Minimization for the Various Policy Instruments, 98 Performance Trade-offs for the Various Policy Instruments, 99 A-1 Estimated Effects of a 10 Percent Reduction in the Weights of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 120 FIGURES 2-1 Oil price shocks and economic growth, 1970-1999, 14 Automotive fuel economy standards (AFES) and manufacturers' CAFE levels, 14 Average weights of domestic and imported vehicles, 15 2-4 Fleet fuel economy of new and on-road passenger cars and light trucks, 16 Passenger car size and weight, 17 x~
. . xt! TABLES AND FIGURES 2-6 Trends in fuel-economy-related attributes of passenger cars, 1975-2000, 17 2-7 Trends in fuel-economy-related attributes of light trucks, 1975-2000, 17 2-8 Average new car price and fuel economy, 18 2-9 Passenger car and light-truck travel and fuel use, 19 2-10 Employment and productivity in the U.S. automotive industry, 22 2-11 2-12 Net profit rates of domestic manufacturers, 1972-1997, 22 Investments in retooling by domestic automobile manufacturers, 1972-1997, with automotive fuel economy standards (AFES) for passenger cars and trucks, 23 2-13 R&D investments by domestic automobile manufacturers, 1972-1997, with automotive fuel economy standards (AFES) for passenger cars and trucks, 24 2-14 Motor vehicle crash death rates, 1950-1998, 25 3-1 Energy use in vehicles, 32 Where the energy in the fuel goes, 33 EPA data for fuel economy for MY 2000 and 2001 cars and light trucks, 34 3-4 Subcompact cars. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 46 Compact cars. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 46 3-6 Midsize cars. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 47 3-7 Large cars. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 47 3-8 Small SUVs. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 48 3-9 Midsize SUVs. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 48 3-10 Large SUVs. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 49 3-11 Minivans. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 49 3-12 Small pickups. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 50 3-13 Large pickups. Incremental cost as a function of fuel consumption, 50 3-14 Relationship between the power of an internal combustion engine and the power of an electric motor in a hybrid electric vehicle, 51 Breakdown of fuel economy improvements bv technolo~v combination. 52 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 ~ 1 ~ ~7~ Working principles of a PEM fuel cell, 53 State of the art and future targets for fuel cell development, 54 Typical fuel cell efficiency, 55 Dependence of fuel consumption on fuel economy, 56 Weight-specific fuel consumption versus weight for all vehicles, 57 Fleet fuel economy, 57 Best-in-class fuel-efficiency analysis of 2000 and 2001 vehicles, 58 LSFC versus payload for a variety of vehicles, 59 Fuel consumption versus payload, 59 Payload versus LSFC, 60 Payload for a variety of vehicles, 60 Fuel economy as a function of average WSFC for different classes of vehicles, 61 Fuel economy versus average payload for different classes of vehicles, 62 Fuel use in alternative 2013 fuel economy scenarios, 63 Fuel savings of alternative 2013 fuel economy improvement targets, 64 Fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions in alternative 2013 fuel economy cases, 64 Greenhouse gas emissions reductions from hypothetical alternative fuel economy improvements targets, 64 Passenger car fuel economy cost curves from selected studies, 68 Light-truck fuel economy cost curves from selected studies, 68 Occupant death rates in single-vehicle crashes for 1990-1996 model passenger vehicles by weight of vehicle, 71 Occupant death rates in two-vehicle crashes for 1990-1996 model passenger vehicles by weight of vehicle, 71
TABLES AND FIGURES . . . Xti! 4-9 Occupant death rates in other vehicles in two-vehicle crashes for 1990-1996 model passenger vehicles, 72 4-10 Pedestrian/bicyclist/motorcyclist death rates for 1990-1996 model passenger vehicles by vehicle weight, 72 4A-1 Life-cycle comparisons of technologies for midsize passenger vehicles, 80 4A-2 Well-to-wheels total system energy use for selected fuel/vehicle pathways, 81 4A-3 Well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions for selected fuel/vehicle pathways, 82 5-1 The operation of the current CAFE standards: passenger cars, gasoline engines only, 1999, 92 5-2 Fuel economy targets under the Enhanced-CAFE system: cars with gasoline engines, 93 5A-1 Gallons used per 100 miles (cars only, gasoline engines only), 104 5A-2 Regression line through the car data in Figure 5A-1 (passenger cars only, gasoline engines only), 105 5A-3 Gallons to drive 100 miles with regression lines (cars and trucks, gasoline engines only), 106 5A-4 Gallons used per 100 miles (all vehicles), 106 5A-5 Weight-specific fuel consumption, 107 5A-6 Enhanced CAFE targets, 109 5A-7 Enhanced CAFE targets in WSFC units, 109 A-1 NHTSA passenger-side crash ratings for MY 2001 passenger cars, 121 A-2 NHTSA driver-side crash ratings for MY 2001 passenger cars, 121 A-3 Estimated frequency of damage to a tree or pole given a single-vehicle crash with a fixed object, 122 A-4 NHTSA static stability factor vs. total weight for MY 2001 vehicles, 123 A-5 Traffic fatality rates and on-road light-duty miles per gallon 1996-2000, 123